Aging No Better Than Its Initial Release, Hook Is Bloated And Boring!

The Good: Decent character arc for the protagonist
The Bad: Mediocre performances all around, Varying quality of special effects, Plot progression in the midsection is dull
The Basics: A family adventure that provides a live-action Peter Pan story, Hook is an unfortunately dull take that has the lawyer Peter Banning put on a quest to save his children by reverting to his prior persona of Peter Pan.


Last month, with the untimely death of Robin Williams, my wife and I felt an instant desire to rewatch works by Robin Williams that we had not seen in quite some time. For me, that took the form of wanting to watch The Fisher King (reviewed here!), for her she had a powerful desire to rewatch Hook. Hook was one of those films that I had managed to avoid in my young adulthood – when it was released, I was past the age where I had any interest in kid’s movies and I was still too young for the adult themes in Hook to resonate – but, as it turns out, it was one of the formative films for my wife. I recall the movie being on in the staff lounge when I worked at a summer camp (I avoided it by going off on my own to read, as I frequently did), but until my wife sat us down to watch it, I had never actually seen Hook. In watching Hook, I realized that I never paid tribute to the passing of Bob Hoskins, who also died this year (I’ll rectify that later this week!). Unfortunately for the legacies of Robin Williams, Bob Hoskins and the rest of the cast who will one day leave this work behind as part of their legacy, Hook is not an exceptional film in any way.

Steven Spielberg, who directed Hook, is famously quoted as saying “People have forgotten how to tell a story. Stories don't have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning” and he certainly is right about that. Most movies do not develop or only do so in truly predictable, banal ways. Unfortunately, with Hook, Spielberg (who was not involved with writing the film) illustrates well that even with a solid sense of development, it is possible to make a pretty terrible movie. Hook is not the worst movie ever, but it is a film crippled by mediocrity, hampered by predictability and is so concerned with telling a specific story of one character’s arc that is completely neglects a sensible development for several of the other characters (most notably the titled villain).

While finding an audience should not be a huge problem, rewatching Hook is a great example of how a movie without a clear focus of to whom the story is being told can be troubling. The film is painfully boring for children for almost the first third, too goofy for adults in the second and third parts to pay off for adults and ultimately acts as an overlong The Little Rascals sketch with an obscenely long build-up.

Peter Banning is an American lawyer who hates flying on planes, is tremendously focused on his work, and neglects his two children most of the time. After missing his son, Jack’s, baseball game, Peter, his wife, and children head to London where Peter’s “great grandmother” Wendy is being honored for her lifetime of charity work for orphans. While Peter, Wendy and Moira are out at the dinner, Jack and Maggie are kidnapped from their beds by the malicious Captain Hook. Peter is miffed, though Wendy tries to get him to believe that he has to go to find the children. Peter is visited by Tinkerbell, who takes him to Neverland.

There, Peter awakens in the pirate’s village where he finds his children and Captain Hook. Hook slowly comes to accept that Banning is Peter Pan (even though Banning does not), but finds the straight-laced lawyer an unworthy opponent for his wrath. To save Peter’s life and the life of his children, Tinkerbell tells Hook that she can get Peter to remember who he is within three days and they can have the battle Hook wants. So, while Hook tries to convert Jack to his cause, Peter is taken to the Lost Boys where Rufio and his child gang retrain him to use his imagination and recall that he is Peter Pan.

The thing about Hook is that Hook is so dramatically underdeveloped in contrast to Peter that he comes across as a monolithic villain. He has had decades to get over the fact that Peter Pan cost him his hand and he essentially rules the seas around Neverland, so provoking a fight with Peter that could cause him to lose everything seems utterly moronic. Lacking a compelling villain who has a clear and compelling need for revenge, Hook becomes a somewhat ridiculous grudge match where one of the participants does not even bear a grudge!

Fortunately, Captain Hook is given the whole plotline that has him turning Jack Banning to his side, to drive a wedge between Peter and his own son. That concept at least makes Hook smart and gives Dustin Hoffman as Hook additional screentime.

But Hook is too straightforward otherwise to keep the interest of the viewer. Peter Banning was always going to go through the journey to realize that he was Peter Pan; everyone around him has been right all along. This was never going to be a reality-bending film experience where people surrounding Peter Banning are all crazy and they get wrong who Peter Pan has become. So, going into Hook, the deck is stacked against those hoping for an audacious film experience. Peter Banning’s arc from uptight lawyer to Peter Pan is actually remarkably good and well-developed. The entire film smartly moves Peter along on his journey of self-discovery (or rediscovery) in a way that works beautifully.

The acting in Hook is mediocre. Dustin Hoffman plays Hook as bored and goofy as opposed to truly menacing, so the hold Hook has over the other pirates does not seem at all realistic. Julia Roberts, due to the special effects process of making her appear smaller, seldom gets eyelines right for interacting with other actors. As a result, Tinkerbell seems disconnected from other characters and Roberts is clearly not interacting with Robin Williams or Dustin Hoffman in most of the scenes they share. Robin Williams is fine as Peter, though he has absolutely no on-screen chemistry with Caroline Goodall (who plays Peter’s wife, Moira) and he fails to land a key scene where Peter Pan tells Jack that the happy thought that allows him to fly is related to his son. Poor Bob Hoskins is relegated to the role of ridiculous Disney-style comic relief sidekick as Smee.

The result is that Hook has a clear beginning, middle, and end and a protagonist whose story develops, but none of it is truly compelling. Too slow to be a great kid’s movie, too goofy to entertain adults, Hook fizzles.

For other works with Caroline Goodall, please check out my reviews of:
My Life In Ruins
Alias - Season 5
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
The Mists Of Avalon
Schindler’s List

3/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Age Makes For Seasoned Conflicts And Decent Humor In Quartet!

The Good: Acting, Decent humor, Interesting characters, Good use of soundtrack, Decent direction
The Bad: Very predictable character and plot arcs
The Basics: Dustin Hoffman’s cinematic rendition of Quartet is smart, entertaining, and well worth watching for anyone who likes strong character-centered dramas.


It seems like lately I have been watching a number of films with mature casts dealing with the issues associated with aging and dealing with consequences of relationship complications that have remained unresolved for years. The latest film in the Swarts Geriatric Film Festival is Quartet. Quartet is a film by Dustin Hoffman, based upon a play and screenplay by Ronald Harwood. It is worth noting up front that I’ve not seen the play, so I cannot provide any comparative analysis. That said, Dustin Hoffman deserves a lot of credit for directing the film.

Hoffman’s direction makes Quartet into something much more than a play on screen. Unlike something like the classic The Lion In Winter (reviewed here!) where the director uses the camera and scope in such a limited fashion that makes one feel like they are just watching a play on the big screen, Quartet uses the film medium well. Hoffman catches the reactions of background characters, makes stylistic shots (focus on falling flowers and a cut to a wide landscape shot at night nail home one of the film’s most powerful emotional moments), and using the soundtrack to enhance mood and setting making for a well-rounded film that has remarkably good flow, despite being very formulaic in its plot progression.

The Beecham House is a retirement home for retired, aged, musicians. The residents keep themselves busy by practicing and performing with one another. A month before a gala that is intended to raise funds needed to save the exclusive facility, the gala’s chorus is running into performance problems. With the death of one of Beecham House’s star performers, the gala’s ticket sales drop off. When soprano vocalist Jean Horton arrives at Beecham House, the potential to save the gala soars. Horton, however, is reclusive and insists on staying retired as opposed to performing like the other residents and Reginald, her ex-husband, is anything but happy to see her join the community.

While Reg and Jean struggle to reconcile the issues that led to their divorce decades prior, Cedric (who is promoting and organizing the gala) strikes upon a capital idea: he wants Reg, Jean, Wilf and Cissy to perform their quartet from Rigoletto. Jean is resistant to the idea, but the rest truly want to perform and save Beecham House. When Jean angrily pushes away her friends and actually hurts Cissy, she is easily manipulated into performing the quartet and doing her part to save Beecham House.

Despite the plot predictability, Quartet is thoroughly enjoyable. The dialogue is sharp and the movie is packed with witty zingers. In fact, the film is so much more vivacious than one might expect given how the average age of the performer in the film is over eighty. Quartet, despite being fictional and the result of wonderful writing, is a great reminder of how much life can still exist for people of any age. Wit need not be limited to the young and the speed of delivery is not dependent upon youth. The dialogue makes one almost forget that they know exactly where the film is going (not to the film’s distributors: horrible preview trailer; if you’re making a predictable film, try not to show the whole damn thing in the trailer).

Hoffman is able to sell Quartet using a tremendous cast. Led by Tom Courtenay and Billy Connolly (who has never been funnier than in this film!), the characters in Quartet are memorable and well-defined. Pauline Collins is delightfully batty as Cissy and her ability to emote makes her character’s swings from forgetful and somewhat delusional to insightful and inspirational is incredible to watch. Maggie Smith has been given so many roles of late where she plays a reserved, “proper,” woman that it’s beginning to feel like she’s typecast. She makes Jean Horton believable and brings gravitas to the role that makes the emotional conflict between Jean and Reg credible.

On DVD, Quartet features a commentary track which is insightful and featurettes on six aspects of the film (some of which are a little repetitive). They are pretty much what one expects from a drama film.

Quartet is a little film that feels like what it is, a tight, somewhat predictable character-driven drama that tells a very specific story. It tells the story well and is worth watching.

For other films with a mature cast, please visit my reviews of:
A Late Quartet
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Unfinished Song

8/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

After Years Of Being Encouraged To View,I Sit Down And Fail To Enjoy The Holiday.

The Good: Moments (infrequent) of acting, Moments of charm
The Bad: Utterly predictable, Much of the character elements, Light on DVD bonus features, Acting
The Basics: In The Holiday, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz lead a decent cast, almost universally performing poorly, in a boring, terribly predictable romantic comedy.


My mother has been on me to watch The Holiday for the last two years. In fact, it might be the very first movie she finished watching and insisted right away that I sit down and watch. I have been busy, between writing novels and reviewing movies that I want to review, but lately a break in my schedule and supply ran out, so I decided to give my mother's beloved movie a chance.

Nancy Meyers, who directed Something's Gotta' Give (reviewed here!) and What Women Want (reviewed here!), two movies I found terribly average, returns to write and direct this Christmas-themed romantic (alleged) comedy. I was largely underwhelmed by the movie, most notably by the acting. It seemed like all of the actors had moments they were decent in, until the moments they were used in familiar ways (save Kate Winslet, who was fine throughout). But for the most part, this is a predictable, obvious romance movie with predictable pairings and a pretty obvious resolution.

Iris Simpkins is working with the love of her life at a publication where she writes about society's great weddings. She is hopelessly in love - in an unrequited way - with Jasper Bloom, with whom she flirts and swaps Christmas gifts up until the moment that he abruptly announces he is engaged to be married to someone else. Devastated, Iris looks to flee. This, conveniently enough, occurs more or less at the same time that movie trailer maker Amanda Woods breaks up with her long-term boyfriend for an affair she suspected he had and soon confirms for her. Looking to get out of Los Angeles, she finds a place in Surrey, England, to swap houses with and the person she is swapping with happens to be Iris. As Iris goes to Los Angeles to a much bigger, luxurious place, Amanda finds herself in a cozy cottage in Surrey where there is nothing to do but wrestle with her personal demons.

In Amanda's house and neighborhood, Iris encounters the film composer Miles, but seems even more drawn to the elderly writer in the neighborhood, Arthur Abbott, who she rescues while he is wandering one day. As Iris avoids Jasper, she helps Arthur get into shape for an award's ceremony in his honor and discovers Miles is charming and less attached than he initially seems. Amanda, thrilled to be away from Ethan, finds herself in the company of Graham, who appears to be something of a womanizer . . . until Amanda meets the women in his life and realizes things have become complicated between them!

The Holiday starts slow, develops to boring and ends lackluster. In fact, the only parts of the movie worth watching are the moments between Iris and Arthur. Here's why: those parts of the movie use the cast in the best possible way and eliminate most of the problems the film possesses. They move, they have character elements that make sense (sort of) and the actors and acting in them are decent. Viewed out of context of the rest of the movie, even the problematic aspects of those scenes work.

Arguably the best moment of the film, the moment that actually has something original and different to say, in The Holiday comes in one of the scenes between Arthur and Iris. That moment has Arthur evaluating Iris as the "best friend" role in her own life. It is a decent monologue and a great concept and Iris latches onto it. The problem is, it doesn't fit Iris's character. Arthur gets it right; she is not the leading lady in her own life, but she isn't even the best friend; she is a non-speaking supernumerary (background performer). Iris is such a nonentity and there is so little interest paid in the way she is painted from the outset that her portions are painful and boring to watch up until the time that Arthur comes into the movie to share the screen with her.

Romantic comedies do not necessarily have to trade on surprise, so predictability in a movie like The Holiday is not necessarily devastating. But in this case, everything is predictable and it is unpleasant how simple the writer and director assumes the audience is. While the mood at the outset is interesting and appropriately painful, at least in the Iris/Jasper relationship, the film soon fails to trade on even that intrigue. As a result, Miles and Iris come together simply by the virtue that they are proximate to one another at the holidays. Neither one seems emotionally intelligent. Come to think of it, neither does Graham, who latches right on to Amanda, who has just ended a five-year relationship.

In the movie filled with people who are otherwise smart, but appear to be emotional idiots, the least interesting characters are Amanda Woods and Ethan. Amanda excising Ethan works, but the resulting need to get away makes little sense to those schooled in the way of psychology hardly seems real. For sure, there is no one way to react to trauma and change, but Amanda gets rid of Ethan, cuts a perfect trailer (which was one of the problems Ethan had with her) and flees rather than bury herself in her work. If the movie had even had a single scene where she wore out her workers cutting films before she was forced to take a vacation, the character would have worked much, much better.

That said, the only truly interesting man in the movie is Arthur, largely because he is the character that seems to be best acted (an irony, considering that Arthur is probably much closer to actor Eli Wallach than any of the other actors are to their characters). The problematic aspects of the movie are all exploded by the acting. Edward Burns and Rufus Sewell are strangely bland in their roles as rejected male love interests. Jude Law and Jack Black both have moments where they are decent, but those moments fade ridiculously quickly when both of them fall back on their standards. Law is fine up until the moment where he is expected to give the Jude Law Penetrating Look #5 that is supposed to make all of the women swoon and . . . completely does not fit his character of Graham.

Similarly, Jack Black is either stuck into his same niche or the part was altered when he was cast or the role of Miles was written with him in mind. I write this because Black is great up until a scene in a video store with Winslet. Miles - up until that point - has been friendly, but serious and grounded and the role had Jack Black actually acting. But in that scene, he begins singing various scores from movies and his character never recovers from that. Yes, it is after that that the scene from the trailer with the "brushing the boob" line comes up and that is a perfectly Jack Black delivery. Unfortunately, it is not in character for Miles so much as it is Black.

At least Jack Black is given the moments to play before his character or performance turn south. Cameron Diaz is not even given that chance. Instead, she starts off with the same bug-eyed, momentarily spastic performance she has become known for and she never pulls herself out of it. This is not even for a moment a stretch for her as an actress and it is reminiscent of several prior roles of hers.

The only actress who seems to hold it together is Kate Winslet, who is decent as Iris, though the character is far more boring than Arthur or Miles ever admits. Winslet is good, but the role is not great.

This is, perhaps, emblematic of the entire movie. The Holiday is a ridiculously simple pitch concept: two women swap houses and fall in love with people in their new setting as a result. The problem is it never becomes more than that and it is not a great concept even with that. On DVD, there are previews for other movies and a commentary track with writer/director Nancy Meyers that I was not bored or interested enough to subject myself to. There are plenty of other movies out there I would rather devote my time and energy to.

For other works with Eli Wallach, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Mystic River
Keeping The Faith

4.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Relationships In A Short Time: Last Chance Harvey Offers A Mature Cast Loving Quickly.

The Good: Good mature cast, Elements of character and acting
The Bad: Oppressive mood, Not much plot to speak of.
The Basics: Deep and at times disturbing, Last Chance Harvey also has a lot of laughs from subtle, dry humor as two adults begin to get to know one another.


There is a certain irony in - the same day I had a discussion with a friend about how most new movies these days are simply adaptations of other, previously printed, works - watching yet another adaptation of a printed work in film (I saw Inkheart, reviewed here!, proximate to this!) that I would then go out for an evening and take in one of the few original films in theaters now. As it turns out, Last Chance Harvey is more than just an Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman vehicle seeking to appeal to the wallets of the over-40 crowd at a time of year when blockbusters are still clinging to live or are returning to theaters. Last Chance Harvey was both written and directed by Joel Hopkins and it is not based upon any novel, graphic novel, comic book or short film by another. It is, pretty original.

The best way to prepare one for the experience of Last Chance Harvey is to suggest (for sake of comparison, not quality) that the film is most closely a combination of About Schmidt (reviewed here!) and Lost In Translation (reviewed here!). However, given that I enjoyed neither of those films particularly, that might not be the best analogy for me to make. I did enjoy Last Chance Harvey, after a fashion, and while I already know I am rating it in the three-star range and recommending it that it is not one I would recommend people rush out and buy. This is hardly an essential DVD (when it arrives on DVD) for anyone's collection. But that said, it is an impressive work of mood and character and it portrays two things seldom seen in cinema today: 1. A cast where the average age is over forty, if not over fifty, and 2. A relationship based upon conversations and mostly just talking.

Harvey Shine is in a rut at work. A writer of musical jingles for commercials, he is quickly being replaced by younger workers and computer effects. The weekend before a meeting which will determine his chance of keeping the final account he has, Harvey heads to England where his daughter and her boyfriend are getting married. There, he brushes off a survey worker, Kate Walker, who is constantly plagued by her mother calling to see how her life is going. After an excruciating visit with his daughter - where he is informed that she would prefer her stepfather give her away - Harvey becomes despondent, which more or less coincides with Kate being fixed up on a blind date that she is abandoned during.

The next day, Harvey witnesses his daughter getting married, then tries desperately to get to Heathrow Airport where he manages to miss his plane back to the United States. In the airport lounge, as he begins to drink, he runs into Kate. After a few opening jabs at one another, Kate and Harvey begin a conversation on life, why Harvey is in England and their assorted disappointments. As they commiserate, Kate convinced Harvey to return for his daughter's wedding reception and both open up to the pain and joy of starting a relationship.

Last Chance Harvey is a comedy based far more on being able to laugh at adversity than anything funny. It is frequently an emotionally difficult movie, filled with slow, excruciating scenes like Harvey realizing he is the only one from the wedding party at the hotel, because his ex-wife has rented a house for everyone else, Harvey trying to save his career by taking phone calls in the middle of his toast to the bride-to-be and the moment Susan tells Harvey she wants to be given away by Brian. The film is preoccupied in its beginning with Harvey getting shat on by everyone and it becomes mired in the mood of complete devaluation of his life and experience. The result is not at all fun to watch.

But unlike something like About Schmidt, which is boring and difficult, Last Chance Harvey has a lot of humor. The humor tends not to be laugh-out-loud funny humor - though the physical humor of Dustin Hoffman as Harvey leaving a banquet room through a rock garden and slipping did make me laugh aloud - but rather a cold, reserved humor. For example, Harvey and Kate debate which of them has had a more shitty day and they go back and forth using that word several times at the climax of which, Kate very simply nods and declared "You win." But to say Last Chance Harvey is not funny at all is not entirely accurate.

What the film is, outside of slow and moderately humorous in a dark and ironic way, is an intriguing blend of adults wrestling with adult issues and behaving like children by taking uncharacteristic leaps. For example, both Harvey and Kate come to their encounter damaged and not emotionally available. Harvey is consistently devalued and degraded, Kate is judged so harshly by her mother for not being married that both see themselves as somehow less than what they are. But that is only where the film begins.

Last Chance Harvey truly develops as the conversations start between Kate and Harvey. they talk to one another. In an adult fashion, they share their damage, their hopes, their meals and their time. They begin to walk with one another and they illustrate maturity by addressing the uncommon issues that most people try to hide when getting to know one another: Harvey's ex-wife is referenced by him pretty frequently, he talks about his failures and Kate talks about her loneliness. But then, both take leaps. Kate, especially, leaps out of her comfort zone by simply saying "yes" to almost all of Harvey's questions. Harvey clings and Kate encourages it by not pushing him away after their initial dialogue.

This film is largely about how adults form relationships without simply falling into bed with one another. This is what emotionally damaged adults do when they want to work at being emotionally healthy: they talk to adults that share that desire to heal and grow and they go from there. So it is with Kate and Harvey and as a result, very little actually happens in Last Chance Harvey. It is adults talking a lot. But it works.

Largely what sells the film in this aspect is the fact that the cast is credible and mature. The cast is largely made of recognizable actors well outside the standard 18 - 24 target demographic. No, this film is ruled by the likes of James Brolin, Kathy Baker, and Eileen Atkins. Even supporting cast was used to create the impression that the film was existing in an adult world. This was done through inspired casting, like using Richard Schiff of The West Wing (reviewed here!) fame as Harvey's manager. Older people tend to have older managers and Schiff is given little screen time, but he uses it extraordinarily well.

Obviously, though, the film rests largely on the acting talents of leads Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman. As a potential couple, Thompson and Hoffman have decent on-screen chemistry when they get to the point where they need to. Until that point, both play their roles with a restraint that creates a feeling of very real and decent distance between them. Thompson, for her part, makes for an excellent leading lady, as always. In Last Chance Harvey, she is witty and strong and also able to play the quietly vulnerable scenes when needed. She is given the chance to express quite an array of emotion, but perhaps what illustrates her acting talent best is the way she opens her part in the film with Hoffman by speaking with a very quiet, distancing sarcasm.

Hoffman is great as the beaten down Harvey, but there is something in his performance that feels more familiar than surprising from him. Instead of being audacious and different, Hoffman's quiet portrayal of a man unsettled seemed like it was so safely within his range, I felt I had seen it from him before. If I have, though, I cannot place it. And he is good, making the transition of his character's body language (he doesn't smile for at least the first half hour of the film) realistic and work with the slow development of the script.

Last Chance Harvey is a slow film and those looking for a good time going into it are likely to be disappointed by how moody and dark the film actually gets. But there are some great lines and the themes of it work well and there are little triumphant moments which a reviewer ought not to ruin. Sufficed to say those who have been hurt before will find something familiar in Harvey and/or Kate and for those who bear with it, there is something worth hanging on for (even into the credits!).

For other works with Kathy Baker, please visit:
All The King’s Men
Cold Mountain
Edward Scissorhands

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Graduating Into Something Mediocre: Rumor Has It . . .

The Good: A few lines near the very end
The Bad: Unextraordinary acting, Flat characters, Formulaic plot
The Basics: In a disappointing romantic comedy, Jennifer Aniston's character Sarah learns she may be the lovechild of the guy from The Graduate. Sigh.


When Harry Met Sally and Love Actually (reviewed here!) are two romantic comedies that are traditionally well-reviewed that I love. They are in my permanent collection, I watch them periodically, I enjoy them quite a bit. I mention them because lately I've seen a lot of romantic comedies or dramadies that border on romantic comedy that have been disappointing, vacuous or unsurprising and unfulfilling. I give every film, c.d. and book I encounter a fair, open-minded chance, but lately, I've been running into a lot of duds. The latest in that series is Rumor Has It . . .

Thirty years after the affair that inspired The Graduate, Sarah Huttinger is going through something of an existential crisis. While at her sister's wedding, while covering up her own engagement, Sarah learns that her grandmother, Katharine, is the woman who Mrs. Robinson was based upon and that the man who she seduced also seduced Sarah's mother. This causes Sarah to believe it is possible that Beau Burroughs might be her biological father, so she hunts him down.

Romantic comedies often hinge on chemistry. Chemistry is key to convincing an audience within ninety to 180 minutes that two people who are just coming together could be romantically involved. Hollywood creates for the audience and society the myth that relationships are not complex and can be condensed into an experience that is encapsulated within a ridiculously short period of time. Even given that common conceit, too many movies fail to engage the viewer simply based on lack of chemistry.

Rumor Has It . . . is plagued by a lack of chemistry all around. There is no palatable chemistry between Sarah and her fiancé Jeff. When we meet Beau, he is not terrible charismatic. Beau and Sarah have no discernible chemistry. And, though it was probably intended, Annie (Sarah's sister) and Scott have no chemistry either. It's pretty much impossible to sell a romantic comedy when none of the characters/actors have chemistry with one another.

I'm going to start the blame here with the actors. Mark Ruffalo plays Jeff and from his first appearance on-screen, my thought returned to the age-old problem of directors casting the Hollywood Beautiful d'jour actor of middling talent. Ruffalo fits this mold and it's unclear what his appeal is. This is the first movie I've seen Ruffalo in and he did not spark any desire to see him in any other roles. His delivery is bland, his affect is dull and he has no on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Aniston.

Conversely, Ruffalo is given the best line of the entire movie, though it comes far too late (almost at the very end) for the viewer to care and be impressed by his character for it. Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about Ruffalo's delivery, so the credit for the line has to go squarely to writer Ted Griffin.

Kevin Costner plays Beau and his performance calls to mind a gag from Family Guy. Chris, the dim son on the show, states, "I haven't been so confused since the ending of No Way Out!" and the shot immediately changes to him walking out of the movie wondering, "How does Kevin Costner keep getting work?" Yes, Rumor Has It . . . brings that question to mind as Costner is neither charismatic or even interesting as a character that pretty much demands being both. His performance feels surprisingly woody and Costner does not add anything to the role to sell the character.

Jennifer Aniston plays Sarah and it does not work for her. She proved to me her acting talents in Friends With Money, which might have been mood-terrible, but she was great. Aniston plays a character too much like her strong but occasionally befuddled Friends character Rachel. She exhibits no chemistry with either Costner or Ruffalo, which pretty much sinks the story.

Director Rob Reiner gets a lot of credit from me. He directed both When Harry Met Sally and the fabulous The American President. He is a man with some real talent and he has proven it time and time again. Rumor Has It . . . is not his best work. He doesn't bring out anything in the cast, does not make the story pop in a visually interesting way nor does he manage to sell us on any of the leads as being talented individuals.

Ultimately, Rumor Has It . . . just does not pop from the writing to the acting to the directing. It is not engaging and the events that are supposed to lead to a cathartic end fail to because the supposed catharsis is based on the concept that two of the characters are good together. Alas, we will hold out for better.

For other works with Mark Ruffalo, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Avengers
Date Night
Shutter Island
The Kids Are All Right
Where The Wild Things Are
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Exposing The Crimes Of Presidents Is The Work Of All The President’s Men

The Good: Great acting, Good story, Moments of good character work/development
The Bad: Character often gets sublimated to the plot, Pacing
The Basics: Great acting and an interesting story barely overcome the plot and character limitations of All The President’s Men, a somewhat mediocre film about the importance of investigative journalism.


For those who do not follow my reviews, I am rather politically involved. I love politics and movies, plays, books and music that deal with politics - modern and historical - tend to interest me. Recently, I found myself enjoying the political satire Man Of The Year and I dug up the Sean Penn film All The King's Men. So, when a friend strongly recommended All The President’s Men, a classic movie about the Watergate break-in and the media's role in uncovering the cover-up, I gladly picked up the two-disc DVD to give it my attention.

The days after five burglars are arrested for breaking into the Democratic Committee's offices at the Watergate Hotel, reported Bob Woodward finds himself at their arraignment talking to a mysterious figure who insists he is not there. This starts a series of irregularities - like the burglars having legal counsel outside the lawyers appointed to them, despite not making any calls for such - that Woodward observes and makes him question what the break-in was all about. He is paired with the more seasoned writer Carl Bernstein and the two begin to unravel a political mystery that suggests that the break-in at the Watergate is tied to the highest levels of government. Woodward and Bernstein stumble upon clues by people involved who slip up, covertly get them information, and who they trick into confirming their suspicions.

In these tumultuous times, All The President’s Men is timely and a strong argument for the importance of an unbiased media to keep those in power honest about their positions and dealings. Woodward and Bernstein uncover a plot that ultimately reaches up to the President of the United States of America, who oversaw the destruction of his political adversaries using the trappings of the office. The president, of course, is Nixon and the film - released in 1976 - hinges on the viewer's understanding of what came next as opposed to illustrating it.

I write that because All The President’s Men is a remarkably inconsistent movie, revealed as such on the new DVD. The film belabors making the first few connections and starting the case over the first forty-minutes of the movie and it spends much of the rest of the movie establishing a connection between the burglars and one person within the White House, following a number of dead ends and convoluted conversations that establish only one new piece of information. After a single person within the White House is established as connected, the movie simply ends. Boom, over two hours and the film simply ends. It's only in a footnote preceding the credits that notes that this takes down Nixon. In the film, the connections are never made that even suggest that Nixon had any involvement in the Watergate break-in or the subsequent cover-up.

All The President’s Men clearly establishes that the intelligence community is being manipulated by someone, probably within the White House, but it never establishes that that person is Nixon. I mean, watching shows like The West Wing (reviewed here!), it becomes clear that there are entire levels of control and influence exerted by the White House that the President never knows about, that the Chief of Staff has remarkable control over.

This is more a journalistic epic, tracing the clues as they fall into place by two intrepid reporters. More than being about the political machinations, this film is about the journalistic processes that went into exposing the political abuses. As a result, this film is very plot-intensive. The movie spends a great deal of time establishing how Woodward and Bernstein did what they did.

Almost entirely neglected in All The President’s Men is why Woodward and Bernstein follow the story so doggedly. It adequately explains why the editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, is motivated to continue publishing the findings of the intrepid reporters, but it does not explain why Woodward and Bernstein were so motivated. The DVD bonuses clearly reveal that the reporters were motivated by patriotism and loyalty to the spirit of their jobs through commentary tracks and featurettes, but it's not in the movie.

So, for example, director Alan J. Pakula wonderfully illustrates the effect of all the work and searching is having on Woodward as he becomes terrified for his life. Pakula wonderfully illustrates this in an otherwise random scene where Woodward begins glancing over his shoulder and simply running away from nothing. The problem is there is no subsequent scene that illustrates why his resolve does not crack. Instead, he simply continues doing what he was before with little regard for his own life without anything shown to make the viewer believe this is smart or natural.

This is not a criticism of the actors, but rather an acknowledgment that the screenwriters prioritized the plot points and machinations of the methods used by the characters as opposed to exploring their motivations, goals and desires. Actors Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford do a good job of creating performances that we can infer a lot from, but none of it is made explicit, making the movie a bit more murky than it ought to be.

And the film is both a little long (138 minutes) and feels long. So, while I can easily sit down and watch a three hour movie, the ones I do watch do not feel ponderous and long. All The President’s Men realistically recreates the sense of searching and working for answers which might be very satisfying in reality, it makes for a mediocre cinematic experience. Pakula tries to mitigate this with some interesting stylistic elements (the crane shot in the Library of Congress is a classic, iconic image from this film), but ultimately, this movie leaps awkwardly around.

As a matter of storytelling, All The President’s Men is inconsistent in how it belabors moments, captures the experience of running into dead ends and the reporters are met with frustration and stonewalling. But then, they will suddenly be in possession of another name, another fact that the viewer is not privy to and the result is that the movie feels somewhat referential. More than being a complete, encapsulated experience, All The President’s Men feels like it is trying to tell the story to people who already know it, so when Woodward and Bernstein are figuring out whose initials fit which personas within the possible conspiracy, only they have the lists of names, only they know the background of all of the players involved.

This creates a weird dialectic where the movie illustrates a strange combination of too much information (in the process of how Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post did their work) and too little information, the specifics of how the reporters narrowed down the options and made the connections they did.

Despite the character limitations, All The President’s Men is well-acted by leads Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. I'm unsure how Hoffman received top billing, but he does an excellent job as Carl Bernstein. Constantly smoking, Hoffman plays an understated reporter who seems to slouch through his task and uses the misperceptions others have about him to his best ability.

Robert Redford here is serious, intense and impressive. I recently saw Redford in The Clearing and here he plays such an entirely different character with equal ability to convince the viewer of the reality of the persona that it makes the argument for Redford as a truly great actor. Redford plays Woodward with seriousness, devotion and a maturity that encapsulates the idyllic nobility of investigative journalists. There is simply not a moment that Redford is on screen that the viewer is not sold on his character's integrity, ability and reality.

Ultimately, though, the acting is not enough to undo the character elements that are shaky at best. This plot-heavy movie lacks the solid methodology of other political thrillers or documentaries, making it somewhat more difficult to watch objectively. It is likely to be enjoyed by anyone who likes a great journalistic story and it can be fun to watch for those who are interested in politics, but objectively it fails on a number of character and plot levels to construct a story that is compelling and, above all, makes sense based on the material presented.

For other political films, be sure to visit my reviews of:
All The King’s Men
Charlie Wilson’s War
The Ides Of March

7/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Better Than Adaptation, Stranger Than Fiction Is Not Strange Enough

The Good: Decent acting, Great story, More clever than funny, Decent directing.
The Bad: Plot is a bit weak, Resolution, DVD Extras are nothing stellar
The Basics: When literary character Harold Crick hears the narration of his life and understands his death is imminent, he sets out to find his author and change her mind.


In the last few years, Hollywood has opened up quite a bit to stories that employ alternative narrative techniques and/or bend the sense of reality of the viewer. The last few years have yielded films about writers and their characters, though after Adaptation (reviewed here!), I was wary about such films. Then I started to see previews for Stranger Than Fiction. After working through my fears that it would be as much of a letdown as Adaptation, I decided to give it a try. I had seen Marc Forster's previous directoral work, Monster's Ball (reviewed here!) and I felt that had bought me his trust just enough to give Stranger Than Fiction a fair shake.

Harold Crick is going about his mundane life working for the IRS with his wristwatch that has been feeding into his compulsions and sense of daily order when he begins to hear a voice. The voice is narrating his life and is foretelling of his imminent death. Harold suddenly finds his life spinning out of control as he becomes infatuated with an artistic tax evader, takes a vacation from work and searches for answers with the help of Professor Jules Hilbert, an expert in literature. Hilbert encourages Crick to determine whether he is a character in a comedy or a tragedy and they soon learn that he is the subject of famed recluse author Karen Eiffel, who is suffering from a nervous breakdown over killing off Harold at her publisher's behest.

Stranger Than Fiction is one of those movies that bends reality but never bothers to explain how or why it is happening. Harold Crick is a literary character existing in the real world such that he is able to interact with the author who is to kill him and yet is also at the whim of her typewriter. He is acknowledged as a character by those in the know, yet without Eiffel's narrations, he still exists and even has a measure of free will. It's one of those movies where the DVD extras (mostly previews and featurettes about the making of the movie) are not terribly exciting and not worth coming back to more than once.

Director Marc Forster does well with Stranger Than Fiction. It is original and between Forster's visual style that animates such things as Crick's counting steps and not telegraphing where the surprises are coming from visually and the generally strong script by Zach Helm, the film largely works. There is enough here to keep the viewer fairly consistently engaged throughout the movie.

First, though, those planning on seeing the film should be disabused of the notion that this is a comedy. Stranger Than Fiction is largely not funny. Helm wrote a script and Forster directed the work in a way that highlights the humanity and horror of the concept of killing a literary character. Harold Crick begins to live in utter dread once he learns of his impending death and his quest to find Eiffel and stopping her from killing him is one of desperation and fear. Are there lines that are funny? Yes. But more often, the film is serious and satirical in a way that is far more dramatic than comedic. Is that a problem? Not really, save that the previews make this look like it might be more a Will Ferrell comedy than it actually is. This is more analogous to the way Punch-Drunk Love fits into - or stands aside - the pantheon of Adam Sandler's movies.

In all, the biggest flaw with Stranger Than Fiction is not so much that it is not as funny as it appears to be in the previews, but rather that the dry tone accents a fairly thin plot. This movie can be easily summarized by the blurb "Literary character realizes he's about to be killed and tries to find his author to stop her." Despite the issues with reality versus fiction, this is a fairly simple plot that is dragged around for the almost two hours of the film. Fortunately, the film is paced well enough that that does not feel like forever.

Conversely with the plot, Harold Crick becomes an immediately likable and interesting character who the audience begins to empathize with. Crick is a man who is finally beginning to live when he learns his life is in jeopardy. He is vastly more interesting than Karen Eiffel and watching his journey becomes a real treat. In fact, Crick becomes so interesting that the resolution to the movie - which is surprisingly unpredictable - becomes somewhat a disappointment. Crick, though, is interesting to watch as he struggles to reconcile his existence with his desire to live, now that he is.

Crick is played off by Ana Pascal, a baker who is resisting government tyranny by not paying a portion of her taxes that pays for things she does not believe in. Pascal is smart and creative, which disrupts Crick's rather ordered world. The combination sounds hackneyed and cliche, but Forster makes it work. Professor Hilbert and Crick's coworker Dave flesh out the world created in the film quite well.

Stranger Than Fiction has a pretty impressive cast and it uses the cast quite well. Queen Latifah and Maggie Gyllenhaal give decent - though unchallenging - performances as Eiffel's editorial assistant and Crick's love interest, respectively. They are good, but nothing stellar. Dustin Hoffman gives what is essentially a supporting performance that is one of his more memorable ones as the serious and educated Professor Hilbert. Hoffman carries himself with the bearing and authority of a seasoned literature professor and his ability to take potentially dry exposition and sell it as organic dialogue in character is impressive.

Emma Thompson proves her acting ability in Stranger Than Fiction like she never has to me. Sure, her performance in Love Actually (reviewed here!) was heartwrenching, but that was because her character was so easy to empathize with and feel sympathy for. How I know Thompson is wonderful as Karen Eiffel is that I found her utterly repulsive. Yes, there was not a spark of the customary attraction to Thompson that comes when she plays a smart, strong woman. As Eiffel, she's a chain smoking, nervous wreck who is difficult to watch and virtually impossible to adore. As a result of how convincingly she sells us on how dismal her character is, Thompson reveals her acting genius.

Will Ferrell does well as Harold Crick. He takes the dramatic role with the requisite seriousness, never dumbing down the potentials of his character with his trademark comedic timing. Ferrell resists any urge to present the film as a straight comedy and it's astonishing how well he is able to pull off the desperation of the character who knows he is to be slaughtered. Ferrell redirects his usual physical comedy into physical control and an impressive range of emotional expression. He gives a performance worthy of watching.

Stranger Than Fiction is a nice change for those disappointed by Adaptation or any number of other films that involve writers bending reality, but it is mostly a straightforward movie that tells a real simple story. This is likely to disappoint those looking for an engaging comedy but bring in just enough for those looking to be entertained to actually enjoy.

For other works with Will Ferrell, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Megamind
Everything Must Go
The Other Guys
Land Of The Lost
You're Welcome America: A Final Night With George W. Bush
Step Brothers
Elf
Family Guy - Season 4
Zoolander
Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back

6/10

For other films, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Living In An American Nightmare: Why Midnight Cowboy Is Overrated.

The Good: Moments of acting
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Lack of plot, Nauseating camera work
The Basics: Drawn out, difficult to watch and largely unlikable, Midnight Cowboy is a character study in misery and not worth the viewer's time or attention.


I watch a lot of movies and in recent years, I have learned to differentiate the difference between great films with disturbing subject matters that are presented well and movies that are just bad. A great example of a film that is disturbing and done well that I would never like to see again, for example, would be Requiem For A Dream; it is populated by characters living in miserable conditions in heartbreaking lives, but the story is told well, despite how troublesome the tale is. I am able to admire the artistry of it without loving the content and the distinction is important. I mention this at the outset of my review of Midnight Cowboy, the 1969 winner of the Best Picture Oscar because I want to establish that I can tell the difference between a well-made movie and one that is not; that films with a disturbing subject or presentation can still make wonderful films.

Midnight Cowboy is not a wonderful film. Among the most overrated films I've ever seen (right up there near the boring Citizen Kane!) , Midnight Cowboy is one of those films that I finished watching and just shook my head and asked aloud, "What was the Academy thinking that year?!" And yeah, I'll ask, "Geez, what is it about movies of that era and anal rape?!" (Deliverance was a nominee for Best Picture three years later and lost to The Godfather.) Is this what truly passed for entertainment in the late 1960s/early 1970s? I'm suddenly quite glad I missed that whole period! Midnight Cowboy is not only populated by unlikable characters making tremendously stupid and annoying-to-watch decisions, but it is filmed erratically. Director John Schlesinger seems happy to "freak out" the viewer with fast camera movements and editing choices that are creative, but put an emphasis on style over substance and that wears thin the longer the film progresses.

In Texas, Joe Buck decides to tell his boss to shove it and he takes a suitcase and heads up North to New York City to be a "hustler" (a gigolo). Once there, he finds it almost impossible to connect with women, especially as he goes everywhere in a cowboy getup and carries a transistor radio. As he wanders around New York City, he tries to get the attention of women who might want to hook up and he largely fails. When he finally does manage to score with a socialite, he ends up paying her money for the experience instead. Vulnerable and alone, Joe falls in with crippled con man Rizzo (derogatively called "Ratso" frequently), who cons him out of some money on the scheme to hook Joe Buck up with a pimp.

As time goes by and Joe Buck recalls traumatic events from his past - most notably being neglected by his grandmother and gang raped with his girlfriend - he finds himself locked out of his hotel room. Joe encounters Enrico again and despite his anger at the con man, he moves in with Enrico and the two begin working the streets together. While the pair struggles to survive into a terrible winter, they go to a party and this changes everything as Joe gets his first legitimate job as a gigolo and Rizzo is wounded.

Right off the bat, the failures of Midnight Cowboy come not in the fact that both of the main protagonists are somewhat dim and difficult to watch, but rather that they have no real redeeming story arcs. I'm happy to watch people who are down who rise above or to watch a film where people try so hard to persevere against the odds, but the world crushes them provided that the story and the characters are interesting. Midnight Cowboy - the cinematic version of it, anyway, is a study of two men making all of the wrong decisions and suffering the consequences of those poor choices. This is hardly entertaining to watch - two people who generally deserve to fail failing - and one has to wonder why so many people would find watching such an unpleasant movie to be such a great use of time. I, for example, had to watch this for my current movie endeavor; but who is expected to watch the failure of miserable people making bad choices time and time again for entertainment purposes?!

Take, for example, Joe Buck. Joe Buck wants to be a slacker and have sex for a living because . . . well, it just appears he's sick of washing dishes. It could be he wants love, but while his backstory indicates he has never truly been loved well before, this is not a love story (though he and Rizzo have a fairly loving relationship, especially comparatively). Joe isn't searching for love, he's searching for a mealticket and surprisingly early in the film, he is offered one; he can take a dishwashing position if he just wants it. This is not like an artist (or reviewer) fighting capitalism for a sense of principles; it is a lazy guy trying to do the one thing he's good at in order to survive and not going about it in any reasonable way.

A great contrast to this would be Hard Eight by P.T. Anderson. In that film, the protagonist is a bit dim, but he is trying to do a good thing when he is taken in by a much smarter man. His lack of wits play into all of the decisions he makes, but he generally has a kind heart. Joe Buck may be a little dim, may be traumatized or he may just be lazy and hoping to get by without having to do anything other than bed rich women. But he doesn't have a plan and he doesn't have a clue and when he falls in with Rizzo, it is hard to care about him. Rizzo, regardless of his physical ailments, is an unlikable con man and if Joe is hapless and generally likable (from a certain point of view), it becomes impossible to like Rizzo from the way he treats Joe from the outset. Rizzo is a classic user and despite his bum leg, he is hard to sympathize with, much less empathize with.

Stylistically, Midnight Cowboy is audacious, but in terribly annoying ways. This is the film we get the classic, oft-parodied man walking through days and nights in New York City montage as well as the cowboy in New York City towering above the crowds. But to get those allusions, one has to sit through innumerable annoying camera whiparounds and zoom in/zoom outs that are stomach-turning. And while I love themes and the recurrence of ideas, the almost constant "Everybody's Talkin'" becomes grating once one decides they do not like the protagonist. Yes, Joe feels like a fish out of water, rightfully so. But he's come to the North on a lark without a clue and it's tough to care about him or his fate. "Everybody's Talking'" at him because he has no clue! Grumble.

As for the acting, here I'm quite split. The direction might be different (if troubling and trippy), but the acting is arguably the closest to redemption this film gets. Jon Voight is good as Joe Buck, at least at portraying a somewhat dim, shell-shocked guy. His costuming, however, has almost more character than he does and while his initial scenes easily draw the viewer into the film, the longer Midnight Cowboy progresses, the more it seems like Voight found a note and is singing the same note the whole film. Even so, his final moments in the movie are extraordinary and he performs well when he is not required to speak.

It is Dustin Hoffman whose acting is the standout in Midnight Cowboy, though. Hoffman plays Rizzo and he sneers through all of his lines with a delivery unlike any in any of the other works he has been in. He is consistent at embodying Rizzo's physical impairment and he plays dark remarkably well. Hoffman has Rizzo constantly thinking and constantly looking for an edge and he does it with a great sense of physical control as well as delivery of his lines. In fact, in some of the film's fantasy sequences where Rizzo is seen running in the sun, it is such a shock in part because of how well Hoffman keeps him crouched over and filthy the rest of the time.

On DVD, the two disc version comes packed with bonus features. In addition to having a commentary track on the disc, there is a second disc which has two documentary featurettes on the impact and filming of Midnight Cowboy. As well, there is a featurette on the films of John Schlesinger and a photo gallery. These do not make the source material any better in my view.

Midnight Cowboy was originally rated X and it is disturbing even though now it is only considered an R-rated film. Cinematically, it may have been a big deal at the time, but now with other works experimenting with camera and lighting, I'd say hold out for something with good characters and a great story as opposed to this. It's just troubling and the lack of catharsis is just the final kick in the teeth to the viewer.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

For other works that heavily use weird camera movements, please check out my reviews of:
District 9
Firefly
The Blair Witch Project

3/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Reality (Again) Leaves Me Less Than Impressed With Kramer Vs. Kramer.

The Good: Acting, Characters, DVD bonus features
The Bad: Plot, Oppressive mood
The Basics: A decent film, Kramer Vs. Kramer is a bit more dated than revealing now and given how common divorce and custody battles are, sadly depicts the norm.


"They" say, frequently, that you can't please everyone and I know I am guilty of that almost constantly. I kvetch about dramatic conventions and how utterly annoying Hollywood body types are in movies and how ridiculous it is that realistic people are seldom portrayed having real problems in movies. And I constantly rail about how characters in films always seem to have enough money or live in places that look unrealistic for what their means actually are. But, given real people fighting like in The Story Of Us (reviewed here!) or a poor person surrounded by her rich friends in Friends With Money, I just kvetch kvetch kvetch about how the movies are not entertaining and that for those who live poor or have heard parents fight for weeks at a time, this is not worth watching. I have come to the same place with Kramer Vs. Kramer.

In the case of Kramer Vs. Kramer, I am able to more enthusiastically recommend the film than I am able to sell readers on why they might want to watch the movie. The reason, as cliche as it is, is that with the prevalence of divorce in the United States, Kramer Vs. Kramer is more dated and while I can appreciate the performances and I actually liked a few of the characters, most of the movie plods along in a rut which many of us have far too much experience with. Ironically, it took for me writing this to recall that not only am I the child of divorce, but I've been divorced myself (there were no children involved in my divorce). The power of Kramer Vs. Kramer was that while I've experienced divorce as the person being abandoned, the film makes the child, Billy Kramer, so much the focus that his is the story viewers empathize with most. Watching Kramer Vs. Kramer put me back in that mindset, that of a child watching parents divorcing, so effectively that it was only when I began analyzing the film that I recalled that divorce was not just something that happened to my parents. That is admittedly powerful for a film to do.

On the day that he lands a big account at the advertising agency he works for and what should be one of the best days of his life, Ted Kramer returns home to find his wife leaving him. When Joanna walks out on them, Ted and Billy (their six year-old) must learn to live with one another and Ted, who is used to putting in long hours and focusing on his career, quickly finds himself overwhelmed by raising the child and working at the office. Ted gets an unlikely ally, though, in his neighbor - one of Joanna's former friends - Margaret, who helps him navigate his divorce and raising Billy.

But after fifteen months, Joanna returns to New York City and watches Ted and Billy. In that time, she decides to sue for custody, shortly after Billy takes a fall from a jungle gym which requires him to get stitches. At the worst possible time, Ted loses his job and must struggle to maintain custody, even though all of the system seems predisposed toward granting Joanna custody.

Kramer Vs. Kramer is a refreshingly direct drama and one of the shortest movies to win the Best Picture Oscar. Right away, the two essential conflicts in the film are established: the relationship conflict and the career conflict and those are, essentially, the only two stories that are developed and carried through to the end. But the truth is, viewers will be largely unsurprised by either aspect, given how they are established. Almost immediately, Joanna leaves, so this forces Ted to step up and become the father he had not been before. It is unsurprising that he rises to the occasion, because if he did not, the subsequent conflict between Ted and Joanna over Billy's custody would not be at all vital. In the process, Ted must decide which is more important, his career or raising his son well. This, too, is an unsurprising character arc and direction for the film, though it does make Ted a more likable character.

The timeless aspect of Kramer Vs. Kramer comes in the character traits (because it is certainly not coming through in the costumes, like the big-'70's glasses worn by one of the characters!) which are admittedly more complicated than in most dramas. Ted is not a monolithically good father and while the audience does not truly come to like Joanna ever, it is hard to characterize her as a villain. But Ted has very real human emotions: he gets frustrated, he throws a glass at the wall, he yells at Billy when Billy does age-appropriate boundary testing. But he also has a very clear and full love for Billy and Joanna. And Ted works hard to provide. In fact, one of the most subtle, best aspects of the character arcs are two breakfasts with Ted and Billy where they make French toast together: the two scenes show clear growth and development in both characters and that is pretty much the best one can ask for from a film on the character front.

But the plot is very dated, save on the issue of custody. The courts still favor the mother in this aspect (I guess this helps make up for the Glass Ceiling, sexual harassment and disproportionately high violent crime victim rates - you can be battered, harassed at work and underpaid, but the courts will let you have your kids more often than not), but the traumatizing nature of divorce and custody arrangements is not such a big deal. For all of the people who scream about the scourge of divorce and "broken homes," like it or not, with divorce rates over fifty percent, this is more the norm than the extraordinary in the United States.

Which brings me back to my original lines. We live it, why do we want to watch it as a movie to escape from all that? The answer is, we do not. Kramer Vs. Kramer is solidly emotional and entertaining (in its way), but it is hardly a film one wants to sit and watch and rewatch. This is a film that highlights (well) a social problem - that the courts are so predisposed toward mothers in custody hearings - by illustrating a hard-working father who comes to learn all of the right messages only to have his status as legal guardian threatened.

Usually, I write about the acting, but the movie stars Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep; that the acting is somewhere between good and extraordinary is pretty much a given. Such is the case in Kramer Vs. Kramer. The two performers who never seem to get enough credit for the film, though, are Justin Henry as Billy and Jane Alexander as Margaret. Alexander holds her own with Hoffman for screen presence and having seen Hoffman in other works, that is no easy task. Alexander is emotional and articulate and makes great use of the few scenes she is in. But, for a change, a child actor comes through. Justin Henry steals his scenes as Billy by emotionally delivering his lines. When Billy falls off the jungle gym, Henry's wailing is so realistic one would actually think he had torn open his head. In fact, one of the best performances by a child actor ever would have to be when Billy is having stitches put in.

On DVD, Kramer Vs. Kramer arrives with minimal - but adequate - bonus features. The DVD has the original theatrical trailers, but no commentary track. There is a documentary which is thorough enough to make up for the lack of a commentary track, though. It is also worth noting that Kramer Vs. Kramer is erratically transferred to DVD. For example, when Ted is walking down the street in the middle of the film, while on his job hunt, the film quality becomes decidedly more grainy. Even so, most of the film looks good.

Kramer Vs. Kramer is a good drama, but it is likely to be real enough for an experience many people already have that it will seem redundant.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project, online here! Please check it out!]

For other dramas, please visit my reviews of:
Magnolia
A Family Thing
Character

6.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Cross-country Road Trip, Why Rain Man Is An Almost Perfect Film!

The Good: Acting, Character development, Direction, Plot, Mood
The Bad: Light on DVD bonus features, Moments of soundtrack being overbearing
The Basics: An awkward dramedy about a sleazy man whose redemption might be found in his autistic older brother, Rain Man improves with each viewing!


Sometimes, it is difficult to separate a movie with a difficult presentation from the subject matter when one considers if it is a great work or not. No one wants to be the person who admits that a holocaust movie is almost universally depressing or outright boring, but sometimes that is the case. Similarly, when a movie is difficult because the characters are unlikable or the subject is one that is difficult to watch on screen, it sometimes takes a more objective analysis to determine whether or not the film is truly great or not. In the case of Rain Man, I began to realize that the film was so effective because of how very much I loathed Tom Cruise's character, Charlie Babbitt. In my experience, the only role that was so well-performed by Cruise (and was an equally unlikable character) was his role in Magnolia (reviewed here!). But given how quickly I returned to watch Rain Man after watching it again for the first time in years last night (I rewatched the movie again this afternoon), I realized that Rain Man is a great film and that even when it was difficult, I enjoyed it. In fact, it may well be a perfect film (or exceptionally close).

Rain Man is a difficult film to watch for several reasons, not the least of which is that Charlie Babbitt is a jerk and the way he treats his brother is horrible to watch. It is a difficult movie to watch because of Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond Babbitt. Raymond is an autistic savant and watching him is often unpleasant and alienating; we become instantly aware of how low-functioning he is and watching how Charlie treats him makes us squirm. Unlike the title character of Adam, Raymond is unable to live in the outside world (without being institutionalized) and watching Rain Man is often as uncomfortable as watching . . . well, a good movie on the holocaust.

Charlie Babbitt is a car dealer of rare imports and when an EPA crackdown on emissions makes some new Lamborghinis impossible to sell, Charlie's financial problems multiply. As he escapes for a weekend with his girlfriend, Susanna, he is informed that his estranged father has died and they fly to Cincinnati instead. There, he inherits a car (which began the estrangement between him and his father) and rosebushes. The rest of his father's estate of three million dollars is tied up in a trust which Charlie quickly finds out belongs to someone at Walbrook. Making a trip to the Walbrook facility, Charlie learns that he has an older brother, Raymond. Thinking that he might be able to get half the estate to bail himself out of his problems, Charlie takes Raymond out of Walbrook.

Almost instantly, though, Charlie learns that caring for the routine-entrapped Raymond is more than he bargained for. Unable to fly out of Cincinnati because of Raymond's violent aversion to airplane travel, the pair embarks on a Cross-country trip in the car. Throughout, Charlie barely puts up with Raymond's repeating the "Who's On First?" monologue, Raymond's insistence on watching specific television programs at certain times and eating meals particular to each day and time (from Walbrook). But as the journey goes on and Charlie's business is repossessed, he makes a connection with Raymond that causes him to reprioritize his life.

Largely Rain Man works because of the script by Ronald Bass and Barry Morrow. Bass and Morrow are very funny with verbal comedy and while it might be initially annoying, the entire film is often like the banter of "Who's On First?" as Charlie tries to control Raymond and keep him from hurting himself. The movie relies on a strong sense of repetition and in that the viewer may easily find themselves empathizing with Charlie. But the longer one listens to Raymond's monologues on K-Mart, The People's Court, or driving the car, the more one feels trapped. This works perfectly both for the viewer (and the point of the film) and the character development of Charlie.

Faced with a new brother and old debts, Charlie begins to actually find his humanity and while his greed is sated - through using his brother for a trip to Las Vegas - he actually begins to grow. Charlie's growth is an argument for Humanism over capitalism and the inherent worth of life versus the unfulfilling nature of capitalist exploitation. Charlie is largely a jerk, but the argument can be made that it is because he is backed into a corner by the business he runs. When he actually stops worrying about the money, he gives a truly heartfelt monologue. The change in Charlie is extraordinary and satisfying for viewers to watch.

Rain Man, though, is extraordinary for its realism. Raymond's trauma is revealed, but even with its revelation, there is no catharsis. While Charlie and the audience can piece together how Raymond ended up severely autistic, knowing does not change his condition. He is trapped as an adult with a mind that is fractured between genius brilliance (with numbers and trivia) and childlike emotional protectionism and outbursts.

What sells the almost-lack of plot (this becomes a road trip pretty quickly as Charlie drives Raymond across the country having to stay at motels each night . . . providing it is not raining) are the characters and the acting. Charlie alienates Susanna early on and this forces him to relate to Raymond on his own and the process becomes riveting to watch because Charlie feels frustrated with Raymond's lack of growth and change much the way his repetitive lines grate on the viewer. Only with truly wonderful actors is that possible.

Yes, that was an implicit statement that Tom Cruise is a great actor because in Rain Man he manages the role perfectly. Cruise has the easier task, which is to essentially play the role of the audience, short and direct with Raymond, wanting a linear sensibility (and narrative). When Charlie runs into an obstacle, he becomes rightously indignant and soon after, the audience feels frustrated with the film because we want the obstacle Charlie sees to be dealt with, but Raymond is entirely distracting. Cruise emotes the frustration of the work-a-day audience and his ability to play short-tempered works wonderfully. Of course, the audience is likely to find their humanity well in advance of Charlie, but Cruise makes the transition realistic.

Dustin Hoffman carries Rain Man almost entirely on the strength of his acting. Hoffman never slips with his facial expression or stiff body language in the way he portrays Raymond and he is exceptional in his delivery of the monotonous lines of the character. Indeed, Hoffman's true mastery comes in watching his eyes. As Raymond, he never hints at his intelligence or awareness and the ability to do that is truly extraordinary. Raymond is easy to empathize with because of how Hoffman represses his own emotions and expresses only Raymond's in the difficult way that he must. It is truly amazing to watch.

On DVD, Rain Man includes a single deleted scene (which answers how Raymond got the food before he ended up in the middle of an intersection) and the original theatrical trailer for the film. As well there is the original featurette for television and that is essentially an extended advertisement with interviews with the main cast. These are not extraordinary DVD bonus features for a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, but they are not bad.

Fortunately, the source material is good enough to encourage the buy. Rain Man is a classic that works because the characters are so vivid and the journey is a worthwhile one, whenever we need to be reminded of how to treat our brothers.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

For other films featuring mental illness as a theme or with Tom Cruise as a star, please check out:
Shutter Island
Unknown
Knight And Day

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |